As universities have become embroiled in a storm over censorship and ‘no platform’ policies, Ruth Addicott looks at the implications for students


Safe and sou “


S


hould university be a “safe space” that protects students from the real world or a place to drive debate, challenge ideas and social boundaries? Increasing attempts to prevent academics,


feminists, comedians and gay rights campaigners from speaking on campus has prompted concern, with claims the bar for causing offence has become so low that it poses a threat to free speech. A survey by online magazine Spiked raised further questions when it revealed that publications including The Sun, Daily Star, Daily Express, Charlie Hebdo and “lads’ mags” were banned at 32 universities in the UK. Leeds, Edinburgh, LSE, Swansea and Aberystwyth were


“the most ban-happy” while Winchester, Trinity St David, Buckingham, Southampton and Glasgow Caledonian were “the most free”. Polly Winn, editor of Forge, the student newspaper at Sheffield Hallam University which is among those said to have a no platform policy, says: “Our student officers have rejected what Spiked have said and see it as being overly deterministic in terms of what they class as ‘restrictive’ or ‘anti-free speech’.” Winn says The Sun is banned on campus because of its Hillsborough coverage, which reflects local feeling. “It’s more of a protest,” she says. “I think in that circumstance it’s completely reasonable to ban it and it’s something that’s been long established in the SU.” Winn is concerned, though, about free speech being stifled


elsewhere. “I’ve been involved in societies and events where people have been openly chastised for not knowing the right terminology or using trigger warnings,” she says. “I think this can be damaging as it isolates people for simply not knowing.” The University of Sussex was also branded “hostile” for banning racist, fascist and sexist speakers and restricting “offensive” speech. Although Sussex does not appear to have any restrictions on media, Harry Howard, editor of its student newspaper, The Badger, believes a no platform policy sets a dangerous precedent and shows students are “ignorant about the meaning and history behind the privileges they enjoy”. “It is insulting and patronising to decide that students cannot make up their own minds about which newspaper they want to buy or avoid,” he says. “Challenging someone or something in open debate is a far


greater way of exposing hatred or idiocy than the alternative of simply attempting to stifle controversial views.” Research by Spiked showed 21% of British universities have


a “safe space” policy which can be used to ban speakers who could offend.


12 | theJournalist


It means students go into journalism completely ignorant of issues boiling under the surface in society, however nasty


” In her book, Academic Freedom in an Age of Conformity,


Joanna Williams suggests students now see themselves as consumers and “expect freedom from speech”. Williams, programme director and senior lecturer at the


University of Kent and education editor at Spiked, believes safe spaces pose a threat not only to free speech but also to academic freedom. “When you call for a speaker like Germaine Greer, who is herself an academic, to be ‘no platformed’, this is academic debate being closed down,” she says. “As soon as you start to say any political views are objectionable, or any speakers, ideas or newspapers or songs, then you restrict free speech on campus.” Richard Brooks, NUS vice-president for union development, rejects this, saying: “I think we should be really clear about what no platform is. The NUS No Platform list, voted on at national conference every year, contains just six fascist and racist organisations. “Academic freedom and debate are a vital part of university


life, but students’ unions have a right to invite who they want to events. This isn’t no platform, banning or censorship – it’s often simple event planning logistics.” He says safe spaces are “vital to the protection of free speech and the diversification of the student voice” and the majority of decisions are democratically decided by students. Paul Bradshaw, lecturer and leader of the MA Online


Journalism course at Birmingham City University, says it is a tough issue for universities, who have to juggle democratic decision-making around how to spend their budgets. However, as he points out: “We wouldn’t tell a journalist not to talk to a source because we disagreed with their views, or found them personally offensive. And listening to someone does not mean that you agree with that person or believe them. But it does provide an opportunity to check accusations, ask for evidence and provide a forum for others to do so.” Bradshaw points out that no platforming can also lead to the speaker being cast as a victim. And, with that person’s views freely available online, the only result is that people who agree with the speaker don’t get to hear the other side of the argument. “In other words, the only people being censored are those


who would have an opportunity to question the information being presented,” he says. “Essentially, what this creates is a ‘filter bubble’, where students are exposed only to opinions and information they already agree with. And for students who go into the media, it means we have journalists who are completely ignorant of issues boiling under the surface in society, however nasty.”


ISTOCKPHOTO


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28